ILL-CONSIDERED MARIJUANA LAWS

It never fails to amaze us that the same people who are always saying,
"If it saves one life, it's worth it," are unable to see the benefit
of laws that ban, albeit imperfectly, behavior that does harm to
individuals and to society.

Typically, it comes down to partisanship and ideology. Consider the
position far-left former lawmaker Michael Lawlor, now a member of Gov.
Dannel P. Malloy's inner circle as undersecretary of criminal justice
policy and planning, on marijuana laws.

Mr. Lawlor says enforcement of current laws does not reduce usage. "If
it worked, it would be an entirely different discussion, but it does
not appear to work," he said during a legislative committee hearing on
marijuana policy March 14. By this logic, laws against homicide should
be thrown out because they manifestly don't prevent all murders.

The point Mr. Lawlor is missing, or willfully ignoring, is that
sanctions suppress harmful behaviors. The fact sanctions suppress
those behaviors incompletely does not warrant eliminating the sanctions.

For example, a 2005 survey by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
found about 14 percent of Connecticut residents older than 12 had used
marijuana during the previous year. How much higher would that number
be if the proposals for decriminalization of possession of small
amounts of marijuana were made law? The people who are trying to
uproot the law are under obligation to explain why their proposal
wouldn't have this socially detrimental effect. They haven't met that
obligation.

Proponents of "medical marijuana" -- legalization by another name --
likewise ignore the record. In some states where physicians can
prescribe marijuana for medical use, unscrupulous doctors turn their
practices into prescription mills where anyone with an ache or pain,
real or imagined, can buy the stuff legally. Why won't this happen in
Connecticut as well? Again, the proponents aren't saying. Instead of
wielding documented statistics and credible projections, they roll out
a handful of sympathetic victims of disease who believe they've
benefited from (necessarily) illicit marijuana use.

This is legislation by anecdote. The fact a very few people might
actually derive benefit from use of an illegal drug does not justify
legalizing that substance for those who might be served just as well
by alternative drugs. And it certainly doesn't justify legalizing it,
in effect if not in fact, for everyone.